Telangana High Court
P.Ramachandraiah vs State Of Telangana, Revenue Dept And 3 ... on 28 June, 2024
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.18619 OF 2017
ORDER:
Sri R. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"...to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in imposing the punishment of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect in Proc.No.A5/4502/2012, dated 02.02.2016 as illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of the rule 20 of CCA Rules 1991 and set aside the same and pass such other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. Brief facts:
Petitioner was appointed as Village Servant (Sethi Sindhi) on 01.03.1993 and later appointed as Village Revenue Officer in the year 2008 in Thorrur-II Village of Thorrur Mandal. By proceedings dated 06.09.2012, JAK, J W.P.No.18619 of 2017 2 respondent No.3 placed the petitioner under suspension for committing certain irregularities. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1991) (for short 'Rules, 1991') and articles of charges were issued framing three charges. An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the allegations and submit an enquiry report. The enquiry officer submitted the report on 03.08.2013 holding that the charges framed as not proved. A re- enquiry was directed and the enquiry officer submitted a report on 09.09.2014 holding that the charges were proved. Disciplinary authority, basing on the findings of enquiry officer, imposed punishment of withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner preferred an appeal to respondent No.2 under Rules, 1991, which is still under consideration.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that petitioner was placed under suspension for the alleged irregularities, which are false. It is further submitted that disciplinary authority directed JAK, J W.P.No.18619 of 2017 3 for a re-enquiry without assigning any reasons or grounds and that punishment imposed on the basis of the re-enquiry report is not valid. It is also submitted that the re-enquiry report is not based on proper appreciation of evidence and has concluded the report in a mechanical manner. It is pointed out that petitioner was not granted an opportunity by the disciplinary authority while directing re-enquiry.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent(s) supported the order passed by respondent No.3 and submitted that charge Nos.2 and 3 framed against petitioner were held proved. It is further submitted that punishment imposed is proportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against petitioner as two of the three charges were held proved. It is also submitted that there is no infirmity in the procedure while conducting the enquiry and that the order passed is valid.
6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record and considered the rival submissions.
JAK, J W.P.No.18619 of 2017 4
7. Petitioner, while working as Village Revenue Officer at Thorrur Village and Mandal, was placed under suspension in excise of powers conferred by Rule 8(1) of Rules, 1991 for committing certain irregularities. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Rule 20 of Rules, 1991. The substance of imputation of misconduct in respect of which enquiry was proposed to be held was set out in the statement of articles of charges along with list of documents, list of witnesses and charges framed were communicated. Petitioner offered explanation on 22.09.2012, received on 24.09.2012 and respondent No.3 on 24.09.2012 appointed an enquiry office to enquire into the allegations and submit a report. The enquiry officer conducted enquiry and submitted report on 30.08.2013 holding that the charges held were not proved. On the ground that enquiry report did not speak anything about the charges framed, the office of respondent No.3 directed for re-enquiry. The re-enquiry report was submitted on 09.09.2014 holding that articles of charge Nos.2 and 3 were held to be proved. Basing on the said report, disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of JAK, J W.P.No.18619 of 2017 5 withholding three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Written arguments are filed on 14.11.2023 reiterating the contentions along with extracts of relevant portions of the Apex Court and High Court judgments in support of the contentions.
8. It is evident from the record that charged officer filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Appeals i.e., Office of Chief Commissioner of Land Administration on 21.03.2016. It is evident from counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 that office of appellate authority (respondent No.2) sought for connected records and specific remarks on the appeal filed by delinquent officer for further necessary action. The same is not disputed. It is averred in the writ affidavit that respondent No.2 did not adjudicate the appeal till date. This Court deems it appropriate to direct respondent No.2, without going into merits of the case, to dispose of the said appeal expeditiously.
JAK, J W.P.No.18619 of 2017 6
9. In view of the submissions made and the fact that appeal is pending adjudication before respondent No.2, as is evident from record, petitioner is permitted to make a representation before the appellate authority for disposal of appeal and on receipt of such representation, respondent No.2 shall dispose of the appeal filed by petitioner within a period of two (02) months.
10. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI Date:28.06.2024 plp